The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of bona fide compliance with the conversion scheme and the liberal construction of the policy in favor of the beneficiaries.

JUDGMENT

Facts:

1. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher and retired from one Bengai Girls’ High School, District Hooghly (for short, the School). She was appointed as a teacher on August 8, 1972 as would be evident from the relevant extract of the service book of the petitioner at page 22 to the writ petition. The petitioner then retired on April 30, 2009 which would also be evident from the said page of the writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, had served as an Assistant Teacher for about more than 36 years.

2. Pursuant to a Larger Bench judgment dated July 16, 2013 rendered, inter alia, In the matter of: District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata & Anr. Vs. Abhijit Baidya & Ors. (APO 94 of 2009) reported at 2013 (3) CHN 711 (Cal) (FB) the petitioner was also allowed to opt for a scheme from Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF). In terms of the said Larger Bench decision the respondent No. 2 issued a notification dated June 13, 2014, Annexure P-8 at page 41 to the writ petition inviting the candidates for exercising their option. The time for exercising such option was fixed in the said notification for Three Months i.e. till September 12, 2014.

3. Pursuant to and in terms of the said notification the petitioner submitted the necessary format for option dated August 18, 2014 at page 33 to the writ petition. After receiving the said option form from the petitioner, the relevant school by its communication dated August 27, 2014, Annexure P-6 at page 35 to the writ petition transmitted and sent the same before the respondent No. 7. Following the dictum of the Larger Bench and the scheme framed by the State, the petitioner had returned the entire Employer’s contribution including the interest thereupon to the State authority on September 1, 2014 as would be evident from page 39 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 9 by its communication dated November 2, 2016 had also acknowledged the return of such amount by the petitioner, Annexure P-8 at page 40 to the writ petition. Since then the petitioner has not yet received the benefits of conversion as stated above. Hence this writ petition.

Submissions:

4. Mr. Manujendra Narayan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to sub-paragraph 5 to paragraph 74 from the Larger Bench decision submits that, all the employees who opted for ROPA 1990 also to be given fresh opportunity to submit the option to switch over to Pension-cum-Gratuity. Learned counsel submits that, such finding of the Larger Bench includes the petitioner who had initially been to the category of then existing Pension Rules of 1968 and the relevant scheme of 1981.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in strict compliance of the said notification issued by the State authority dated June 13, 2014 the petitioner had exercised and opted for the change of option within the period of three months as framed thereunder. The petitioner with all her bona fide had returned the entire money she had received being the employer’s contribution together with interest. The petitioner being the beneficiary of the scheme had complied with all her obligations with all bona fide whatever she could do.

6. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent State authorities shall be directed in the form of mandamus to grant the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner.

7. Mr. Pinaki Dhole, learned State counsel with Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 referring to a report dated September 7, 2023 signed by the respondent No. 6 submits that, the respondent No. 5 by its memo dated June 18, 2018 sent the papers to the Principal Accountant General (A&E), West Bengal. The said authority then by P.P.O. No. 11183684 sanctioned the necessary pension in favour of the petitioner, Annexure R-3 at page 4 to the report. The learned State counsel submits that, the petitioner had exercised the option to switch over